3 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

I'm pro keeping religion out of my life, not pro life or pro choice. As you said this isn't you personally, but ultimately this is the what it comes down to. 

 

Having a common sense answer on abortion is not the second the sperm goes into the egg nor is allowing 3rd trimester abortions. 

Has to be a middle ground where people can agree on that only at the mothers health should an abortion happen. Now is it 17 weeks or up to 23 weeks like Canada has their abortion laws. That is where the answer lies not the extremes. 

That's all fine.  You asked me when I think life begins, I answered.  I didn't promote laws or religious agenda in government, you just went off the rails with assumptions.  

4 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

I'm pro keeping religion out of my life, not pro life or pro choice. As you said this isn't you personally, but ultimately this is the what it comes down to. 

 

Having a common sense answer on abortion is not the second the sperm goes into the egg nor is allowing 3rd trimester abortions. 

Has to be a middle ground where people can agree on that only at the mothers health should an abortion happen. Now is it 17 weeks or up to 23 weeks like Canada has their abortion laws. That is where the answer lies not the extremes. 

To be clear, they are "pro-life" and not "pro-viability".

A fertilized, single-celled fetus is considered life, even in the scientific community. But, yes, the notion that killing a single celled organism is murder is completely insane to most people.

my college gf used to go to planned parenthood for her oil changes. i went with her a couple times & they always gave us a bag full of rubbers on the way out.   i guess they didn't want the 2 of us procreating...can't really blame them, tbh.  

she later spent time in a mental institution....and....well....i'm me.    

 

 

 

My personal opinion that nobody asked for...

1. Allow abortions up to the end of the 1st trimester.
2. Ban all abortions after the 1st trimester.
3. Only allow post-1st trimester abortions in cases of moderate to extreme risk to the mother.
4. Have a special panel in each state that reviews requests for exceptions to any of the above.

1 minute ago, mayanh8 said:

My personal opinion that nobody asked for...

1. Allow abortions up to the end of the 1st trimester.
2. Ban all abortions after the 1st trimester.
3. Only allow post-1st trimester abortions in cases of moderate to extreme risk to the mother.
4. Have a special panel in each state that reviews requests for exceptions to any of the above.

It's a sensible outlook on this issue in my opinion. 

it would be difficult to keep extremists off that panel though.

1 minute ago, DaEagles4Life said:

It's a sensible outlook on this issue in my opinion. 

which unfortunately, means it has zero chance to happen. 

Just now, mr_hunt said:

it would be difficult to keep extremists off that panel though.

That'd be an individual state issue. States who want to be more conservative can put a bunch of nutters on their board. 

My personal opinion: There should be no mention of abortion in the law, anywhere. The only people that need to be involved in the decision-making process is the mother and whomever she allows; whether it's the father, her family, her doctor, her clergy, her friends, etc. Women get to choose what happens to their bodies and their children.

39 minutes ago, NOTW said:

There are different state laws about it.  I have friends who adopted a boy years ago.  The mother was in a state where she had I think a week or so to change her mind.  The adoptive parents purchase baby items, get the room ready, get emotionally invested but were tense not knowing if the girl would change her mind.

2 years later, that same woman got pregnant again.  She didn't want a baby, but still had unprotected sex irresponsibly and got pregnant again.  She thought about keeping the baby, then changed her mind 2 months from delivery and contacted them to see if they wanted to also adopt her girl. They agreed and adopted so the brother and sister could be together.  

That's a good story. The fears may be irrational, but I know my neighbors who are looking to adopt have read horror stories of raising a kid for years only to have to surrender them back to the birth parent after they've gotten "cleaned up"

15 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

That's a good story. The fears may be irrational, but I know my neighbors who are looking to adopt have read horror stories of raising a kid for years only to have to surrender them back to the birth parent after they've gotten "cleaned up"

My friends' adopted baby is now beyond 10 years old, and it's never happened. I also know several cases where older children were removed from terrible situations, and they aged out without adopted parents losing custody. A few times they had to go back to court to defend a challenge from one of the birth parents, but the adopted parents always won.

Not saying it can't happen... The courts are trying to look for the best interests of the children. They're not going to remove a child from an established situation unless it's for really good reason.

41 minutes ago, mayanh8 said:

A fertilized, single-celled fetus is considered life, even in the scientific community.

Is a healthy sperm considered life?

29 minutes ago, toolg said:

My personal opinion: There should be no mention of abortion in the law, anywhere. The only people that need to be involved in the decision-making process is the mother and whomever she allows; whether it's the father, her family, her doctor, her clergy, her friends, etc. Women get to choose what happens to their bodies and their children.

At what point in the pregnancy cycle does that change in your opinion?  At what point does the forming life gain its own rights?

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Is a healthy sperm considered life?

I don't think it's considered an organism by the scientific community since it cannot reproduce or respond to external stimuli.

5 minutes ago, toolg said:

My friends' adopted baby is now beyond 10 years old, and it's never happened. I also know several cases where older children were removed from terrible situations, and they aged out without adopted parents losing custody. A few times they had to go back to court to defend a challenge from one of the birth parents, but the adopted parents always won.

Not saying it can't happen... The courts are trying to look for the best interests of the children. They're not going to remove a child from an established situation unless it's for really good reason.

My cousin adopted a 12 year old boy. Then her husband passed away like 2 years later. To add to all that the kid is pretty much a monster because of the way he was brought up. Father in prison, mom OD'ed, has numerous real criminals in his family (an uncle who murdered someone, etc.)

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

At what point in the pregnancy cycle does that change in your opinion?  At what point does the forming life gain its own rights?

Birth. But even at that point, the child can't speak. Mother has the right to make medical decisions for the child. The child is a legal adult at 18 years old (unless emancipated).

4 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I don't think it's considered an organism by the scientific community since it cannot reproduce or respond to external stimuli.

Neither can a newly conceived human egg/sperm combination.

6 minutes ago, toolg said:

Birth. But even at that point, the child can't speak. Mother has the right to make medical decisions for the child. The child is a legal adult at 18 years old (unless emancipated).

That seems a quite extreme to me.  An 8.5 month old fetus can survive just fine outside the womb for one thing.  Also, a parent is limited in the legal actions they can take with their minor children.

7 minutes ago, toolg said:

Birth. But even at that point, the child can't speak. Mother has the right to make medical decisions for the child. The child is a legal adult at 18 years old (unless emancipated).

Holy crap. At what point do you realize you're the bad guy. Yikes. 

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

That seems a quite extreme to me.  An 8.5 month old fetus can survive just fine outside the womb for one thing.  Also, a parent is limited in the legal actions they can take with their minor children.

An 8.5 month old fetus isn't going to be aborted. It would be induced labor and birth.

1 minute ago, toolg said:

An 8.5 month old fetus isn't going to be aborted. It would be induced labor and birth.

So then you are ok to set a limit?

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Neither can a newly conceived human egg/sperm combination.

 It seems that there are some additional criteria. A quick search returned this:

 

Quote

Samriddhi Dhawan

, MBBS from GSVM Medical College,Kanpur (2021)

Answered Mar 19, 2017 · Upvoted by 

Matan Shelomi

, Organismic and Evolutionary Biologist

 

 

No, a sperm cell does not fulfill in the category of a living organism. The basic features of a living organism are metabolism, response to external environment, growth, reproduction and adaptation.

Except for metabolism, a mature sperm does not show any of the above characteristics.

https://www.quora.com/Is-a-sperm-cell-an-independent-living-organism

 

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

So then you are ok to set a limit?

No laws are needed to limit abortions. Mothers, the medical community, everybody can figure this out on their own without politicians, courts, and the law getting involved.

We have found our Extremes on the board. Let's find a common ground and email Biden the sensible solution. 

3 minutes ago, toolg said:

No laws are needed to limit abortions. Mothers, the medical community, everybody can figure this out on their own without politicians, courts, and the law getting involved.

So a mother wants to abort her child a day before he due date and you're ok with this. You're sick, dude. The cult you belong to has completely fried your brain.